On 07/16/2012 10:55 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 16/07/12 10:01, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 07/16/2012 09:56 AM, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 16/07/12 09:41, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 07/16/2012 01:46 AM, Robert Middleswarth wrote:
On 07/15/2012 03:59 PM, Ayal Baron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 07/15/2012 01:53 AM, Ayal Baron wrote:
Sorry for cross-posting, but in this case I think it's relevant.
The original idea was that every time we wish to discuss a new
cross-component feature we should do it over arch list. However, it
would appear that de-facto usually engine-devel and vdsm-devel are
being used (cross posted). Currently engine-devel has 211
subscribers, arch has 160 and vdsm-devel has 128 so from this
perspective again, arch seems less relevant. I propose we ditch
arch and keep the other 2 mailing lists. I'm not sure whether new
cross-component features should be discussed solely on engine-devel
or cross-posted (there are probably people who wouldn't care about
engine side but would still like to know about such changes).
I don't normally read engine-devel and vdsm-devel, so I hadn't
that discussions I would expect to be on arch@ are not happening
I'm probably not the only person in that situation.
If this project were 100% about Engine and VDSM, then I could
understand your reasoning. But we've already added a few new
incubating projects, we have subsystem teams such as documentation
infrastructure, and we all need a single location where we know we
reach *all* contributors to this project.
If we try to force all that discussion on to engine-devel, not
everyone would be interested. There is enough on engine-devel that is
not general interest that it would become noise (as it has for me, so
I filter it) or people would drop it all together.
Perhaps what we need to do is have the discipline to cross-post *all*
general interest discussions from the project mailing list back to
arch@? Enforce the rule that decisions that affect the whole project
have to be ratified on arch@ instead of whatever project list the
discussions started on? Strongly suggest that all contributors be on
arch@ and announce@ as a minimum?
I find that anything that should go on arch would interest anyone on
the devel lists (as it is about new features, design, etc) so I
believe that arch should have at least everyone on engine-devel and
However, right now this is not the case as is evident by number of
subs to each list (e.g. I haven't compared to see if everyone on arch
is on engine).
So imo something needs to be done.
I'm fine with keeping arch, but as you said, that means we need to
enforce it to be *the* list for feature discussions and I'm not
exactly sure how you'd go about doing that.
Maybe arch needs renamed to make it clear what if is for?
Maybe something simple like ovirt-devel to make it clear it is for
generally ovirt development?
we can simply make it arch include the other mailing lists, so sending
to arch would be sending to all other mailing lists.
What would happen if someone reply on the engine-list to a mail
originally sent to arch?
wouldn't we end-up starting a thread on arch and then loosing it to one
of the other lists?
reply-to is not set to reply-to-list, rather to original sender/cc list,
so shouldn't be an issue
ok so if reply to such mail de-facto I'll send a mail to the arch list -
shouldn't I be register to the arch list (or I need someone to approve
you would be moderated the first time you reply to it, yes.
same as for all other mailing lists - not an issue usually.
wouldn't resolve the dupes, but will resolve need of everyone to
subscribe to it as well.
(for dupes i also use a mail filter to delete emails arriving from
engine-devel and cc other mailing list, etc.
Arch mailing list
vdsm-devel mailing list